http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html


Let's review this a bit. Now who is making this claim, from the article,
"The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected
group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study. "

Interesting what are the basing this opinion on, well, their opinion.

So let us review, a group who didn't support the war, comes to the
conclusion based on their selection of evidence that there was no reason for
there to be a war. Proving, of coarse, that they, those noble souls, were
right all along.

Rather weak argument, I am afraid.

Phil

"Phil" wrote in message news:nljLb.84$5V2.36@attbi_s53...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html


Let's review this a bit. Now who is making this claim, from the article,
"The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan,
respected
group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study. "

Interesting what are the basing this opinion on, well, their opinion.

So let us review, a group who didn't support the war, comes to the
conclusion based on their selection of evidence that there was no reason
for
there to be a war. Proving, of coarse, that they, those noble souls, were
right all along.

Rather weak argument, I am afraid.

Phil

Phil:

(1) The article appears on CNN's website, and as we all know, CNN is a
media group which has become notoriously and increasingly right-wing since
it was acquired from Ted Turner. Your attack on the source of the article
("if you dont' like the message, attack the messenger" fallacy) falls flat,
therefore. You offer no evidence whatsoever to discredit the claim by CNN
itself that Carnegie... is an independent group. There are countless groups
that opposed the war on Iraq *as it was conducted* that were "independent"
groups - with no specific ties to any political party or PAC or "think
tank".

(2) The recent U.S. Army War College official report came to exactly the
same conclusion. They're not exactly "leftist" or "liberal" or "radic-lib"
or any of those other words that the right-wing hate/power-mongers have
tried to pretend (all these years, through their constant brainwashing of
the dumbed-down-masses) are nasty, ugly, filthy things to be. They've been
around for a long time, serving both Republican and Democrat
administrations.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news:nljLb.84$5V2.36@attbi_s53...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html


Let's review this a bit. Now who is making this claim, from the article,
"The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan,
respected
group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study. "

Interesting what are the basing this opinion on, well, their opinion.

So let us review, a group who didn't support the war, comes to the
conclusion based on their selection of evidence that there was no reason
for
there to be a war. Proving, of coarse, that they, those noble souls,
were
right all along.

Rather weak argument, I am afraid.

Phil

Phil:

(1) The article appears on CNN's website, and as we all know, CNN is a
media group which has become notoriously and increasingly right-wing since
it was acquired from Ted Turner.

First, CNN is hardily "notorously... right-wing".

Your attack on the source of the article
("if you dont' like the message, attack the messenger" fallacy) falls
flat,
therefore.

I did not attack the massager, CNN, I attack their source, therefore "if you
don't like the message, attack the messenger fallacy" is a misstatement of
my issue. This comment like most in this section seems to be a bit of a non
sequitur and not to the issue at hand.

You offer no evidence whatsoever to discredit the claim by CNN
itself that Carnegie... is an independent group.

I didn't question whether Carnegie was a independent group. The issue is the
trust worthiness of its comments on the war based on its preconceived
opinions.
There are countless groups
that opposed the war on Iraq *as it was conducted* that were
"independent"
groups - with no specific ties to any political party or PAC or "think
tank".

That the Carnegie is not directly connect to a particular political party,
PAC, or think tank does not, however, mean that it is politically neutral.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is known to be for the last
40 years or so, has been consider far left wing. However, this isn't the
point, the point is you must always question the one who claims see I'm
right when bring up a strawman argument. Yes, Bush used WMD as an argument
to go to war but it wasn't the only argument. Also, before the war everybody
and that includes France, Germany, and the U.N. thought Iraq had WMD. For
Bush to have lied there has to be more than lack of WMD, he had to know that
they weren't there and no one has proven that

(2) The recent U.S. Army War College official report came to exactly the
same conclusion. They're not exactly "leftist" or "liberal" or
"radic-lib"

You have a problem here, the War College did not publish that report. I
know, I know, you going to point out another thread which you claim backs
you up. Well, you should have looked at the proof more carefully. The proof
was just the web site for the war college not the web site, of War College's
official reports. If you go to the reports, the one in question, isn't
there. You were rather cleverly lied to.

or any of those other words that the right-wing hate/power-mongers have
tried to pretend (all these years, through their constant brainwashing of
the dumbed-down-masses) are nasty, ugly, filthy things to be. They've
been
around for a long time, serving both Republican and Democrat
administrations.

Jim, doesn't in strike you a bit strange, that your claim as to how nasty
the right is, is done in the same nasty ugly filthy way you accuse them of
and if you don't believe me, look at your own post and look at what other
Dean supports have said or perhaps take a look at favorite site the
democraticunderground. They are hardly sweat and kind. And please Jim, don't
give me that old saw, they did first, it just doesn't cut it.

Phil